Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 24, 2013, 12:32

Don't you agree, Mike, that very few of us read an SS Annual Report?  Even those of us who do are unlikely to understand or interpret the information correctly.

Ain't no way "We all Know."   

I'm just saying it's public information, and even before it was public in an annual report it was often discussed here that the estimated percentage paid by SS was between 20-30%.

And in the context of the discussion you originally quoted me on, where I was talking about not wanting the community to make decisions about what's best for everyone, I think you've helped prove my point. If you're right and most people don't read the details and know exactly what they're involved in, all the more reason I'd suggest that the community as a whole is woefully ill-equipped to make any good collective decisions about what's good for all of us.

Please read the thread again, Mike.  I agreed with that in my first post.  It was the "We All Know" with which I took exception.

The reason I agreed your Point was because it proves that No One knows everything.  We All Know that too much unsubstantiated fact is offered as "We All Know" for any of us to accept what our woefully ill-equipped community claims to be fact.

I try very hard to take any of that ill-advised  babble with all the seriousness it deserves.

And, please, note ... we seem to be in violent agreement on that part of your debate.  Read my first offering again. 

 

Quote from: cthoman on June 24, 2013, 12:16

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 24, 2013, 11:50

Public or not ... I still don't know this to be a fact.  How did you calculate an answer?

It's opinion, but it has been stated that SS pays around 25-30%. I would assume most contributors would think that they deserve more than that. But, that is just an assumption. Like was said above, it's hard to predict what everyone is thinking. It can be very surprising what they are thinking (especially after seeing that poll).

Opinion certainly does not equate to "We All Know."

This is a very silly semantic argument. I'm out.

Boring or not, I agree with Warren, he has a point.

Back to CB... I changed my payout options from bank transfer to paypal once... only to discover I got less money... I had to pay the paypal fee..

Insult to injury!!! 

I know many people who have taken down their ports from there - folk that do not frequent any kind of microstock, SS, IS or whatever forums!! The silent majority so to speak.

Ron, I do not have a business account with paypal. I am peanuts, a private person.

 Point is re colourbox... as a private person and a receiver of a few payouts via paypal from the various agencies... I have never had to pay the fee ...

With CB I was astonished that I had to pay to get my money via paypal. I changed it back to bank transfer the day after.

But it is not really about whether I have to pay the paypal fee or not, it is really about the ethics of a company who makes lots and lots of money and who decide to throw the fees onto the photographers who supply them.

As for the raise that the Orignial poster talks about....  ha... it actually worries me that the talk is about "good photographers" getting a raise.  if it ever happens.

What does that mean?

The machines that upload thousands... or the guy with 400 pics that sell well? (I am neither of these).

Seems that CB is just the same as IS and all the other agencies. Screw the photographer......  because there are always more willing to supply at a cheaper price.

What a joke. 3.7% royalty and then you have to pay a fee to get your money. That's rich.

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 24, 2013, 12:32

Quote from: EmberMike on June 24, 2013, 12:29

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 24, 2013, 11:50

Public or not ... I still don't know this to be a fact.  How did you calculate an answer?

It's in the annual reports. In 2012 Shutterstock spent $64 million on "cost of revenue" which includes our royalties, credit card processing fees, paying reviewers, customer service expenses, infrastructure costs related to maintaining the website and associated employee compensation and non-cash equity-based compensation, facility costs, and other supporting overhead costs. That's 37% of their $169 million revenue for that year. I can't find where exactly the contributor royalties numbers are (the report is a bit long and I'm not much for financial reading) but at the very best, we can say that SS pays us no more than 30% of what they take in, probably more like 20-25%. Our royalties are among that 37% that also includes a lot of other expensive items, and even though they are the largest part of that 37%, as indicated in the report, I doubt very much that they account for anything over 30% of the cost of revenue.
 
I'm sure there is a more specific number in this report somewhere, so if anyone knows what it is, please share. But anecdotally, I can say with great certainty that SS pays us no more than 30% of what they take in from sales, and in all likelihood it's more like high 20% numbers at best.

Don't you agree, Mike, that very few of us read an SS Annual Report?  Even those of us who do are unlikely to understand or interpret the information correctly.

Ain't no way "We all Know."   

oh my god, I am sorry to say but your comments are pointless (one after another)

I wonder if you take anything serious, aren't you old enough to have a good discussion?

its a pity to see a contributor talking this way really, how immature...

BTW most relevant info is easily found on tables at the reports

If you don't know what those items are Mike how do you know they are expensive. You write you own words anecdotally you doubt very much but don't know. Which makes all of it a big guess.

Colourbox says to me about time people stop sending pictures to these places and only stay to the big agency who pays back for work.

I agree that just stinks! But $0.45 is actually double what some are paying out ?!

$0.45 for a subscription sale wouldn't be bad. But Colourbox also pays out the same on single image sales as well. That's the part I can't get over. $0.45 for a single image sale is the industry-low as far as I know.

Mike did you read my 2nd post the one behind us? I completely agree!

I have been learning that "subscription = volume " at least it does on SS

I did, I was just commenting on the $0.45 specifically, and I think it's worth mentioning as it relates to subscriptions vs. single image sales.

But thanks for agreeing with me too.

Avoid colourbox!!!! Just for Your information: Colourbox can simply delete Your profile with all works without any reason. Just because they want do that. Here is original message from them:

"We are in the process of evaluating our suppliers and have chosen your portfolio among others to evaluate, as, unfortunately, we are cleaning up in the database.

We have noticed that our cooperation which started in 2017, has not been very fruitful.

In this process, we have decided to end the cooperation with you due to low sales, as unfortunately, our mainly Scandinavian customers market prefer other styles and themes relevant to them - which they don't seem to find within your portfolio.

Your portfolio has been deleted and your import is shut down as of today.

We are really sorry that we were not able to promote your material better.

In the next week, we will pay you what we owe you and your account will be deleted next week as well."
--------------------------


"not been very fruitful"    And it means less then 1 sale per day!   
I think there is not so many clients in their database. And there is a lot of photographers. So they just cannot support servers anymore. ..."not been very fruitful" ))))  losers...

Colourbox can simply delete Your profile with all works without any reason. Just because they want do that.

Spoiler alert: EVERY agency can do that...